this weekend, there was a pseudo-alfred hitchcock festival at the castro theater. basically, they're playing seven of his best films with guest speakers doing q&a's. for example, between "the birds" and "marnie", tippi hedrin gave a speech about how it was to be hitch's leading lady and the affection/abuse he had for her and yet how amazing it was to work for a master.

between "strangers on a train" and "rope", pat hitchcock (his daughter) talked about having small roles in his films and added some other nice things to say - when she got a chance to, that is, whenever the fat yenta who interviewed her that nobody came to see or hear decided to give her some very quick airtime to be heard. what an asshole.

anyway, there was some great stories and witticisms, but none funnier than this one, told by his daughter.

supposedly, during the filming of "lifeboat", a crew member came up to hitch and told him that tallulah bankhead (the star) wasn't wearing any underwear, and asked him what they should do about it. hitch said, "well, i'm not gonna approach that one." the crew member asked who he wanted to take care of it. hitch thought about it and said, "well, i haven't decided. it's either make-up or hairdressing."

anyway, here was the line-up of films. and if you're not a big fan of the greatest cinematic master who ever lived, you can start here.

one of the many cool things about apple products is that if you're connected to a server, you have the ability of sharing what's on your i-pod with other people's i-pods on the network. so, for example, someone can access my i-pod and listen to the red thread or the decemberists and i can access what they have, like hot hot heat or the fiery furnaces.

seems that he came out with an album called "has been" that has had some incredible buzz to it. then again, most anything that ben folds puts his talents on usually does very well. hell, even their first collaboration, "in love", was pretty damn good, but i also thought it was a one-trick pony - shatner's strange oration over a well-hooked song.

wrong. "has been" is more of that and so much better.

seriously.

yes, i know he's both kirk and hooker. yes, i know he's a parody of himself. but trust me, he's really got something going on here. for some odd reason, his spoken word and his strangely sublime lyrics and the music behind him matches up extraordinarily well, not to mention shockingly different.

once you get past the whole "it's shatner" thing and concentrate on the product, you'll realize that it's pretty damn good and worth at least a listen, but you'll really should give it a couple of whirls. it ain't "abbey road" but it ain't deep blue something either.

on the train ride home yesterday, i noticed a fairly attractive woman standing with her back against the door. she was listening to her i-pod while keeping her head down, nodding subtlely to the beat in her ears. the train was packed, but she already staked out her space. she was comfortable.

we pulled out from the tunnel and into the sunlight. she kept her head down, still nodding, until the moment we came to the stop and the door opened. she back away, and our eyes caught.

that's when i noticed her very light mustache.

it wasn't a selleck. it wasn't a rollie fingers. it was more along the lines of a mustache that don johnson would grow if don johnson would grow a mustache (and you know that DJ has probably tried). think an editor of a porn film who can quote mace windu.

i stared at the 'stache. then again, i stare at every 'stache. i inspected it from every angle. i noticed the whisker quality. yes, i concur, that is a mustache. there is no mistaking.

then i remembered that i live in san francisco.

she might be a he. trust me, this isn't a rarity.

so i looked for any evidence. she had no adam's apple. she actually had a very feminine frame. she was conservatively dressed, meaning she was not going out of her way to look like a female. her jaw was normal. if she was a he, then i would have been duped.

then i wondered: if she were really a he, wouldn't he have just shaved his mustache? men shave; it's part of their daily routine. it's gonna grow back anyway; shaving daily, if he were a she, wouldn't be a big deal. you admit to nothing other than hair grows. then again, if you take estrogen shots, does hair stop growing on your upper lip? is that the way it works? what if it doesn't? if a man doesn't want to shave, could he get it waxed off?

yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is how i spent the last fifteen minutes of my train ride yesterday.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

i just started doing bikram yoga. yeah, i said it. yoga. a quick ditty about what bikram is exactly: basically, we do all twenty-six poses and stretches in a room that's heated to 105 degrees. the whole workout lasts about ninety minutes. the heat allows the muscles to stretch without trauma and to "release toxins and poisons" in your body through your sweat while releasing oxygen-rich blood through your system. these are all good things; if i keep with it, i'll lose weight and tone muscles and develop better balance and, supposedly, i won't be sick as much. not that i've been sick or ever really sick at all; i guess now i won't be sick ever again.

anyway, it's an amazing concept. i was able to get through my first workout (which was at night) and was completely exhausted and soaked on my walk home. the second workout (which was in the morning) didn't go too well; i had to stop ten minutes before the end of class. it was either that or passing out.

here's the cool thing: the day after the workouts, i was about as stretched out as i could possibly ask for. in fact, maybe overly stretched, stretched to the point of almost hurting.

almost.

i felt great, as if i'd pushed myself to a limit and was now teetering on a cliff but never falling, kinda like how when you drink way too much and have too much of a good time, but the next day you wake up as if nothing happened the night before, absolutely completely refreshed, and you suddenly become invinsible because you're now immune to hangovers.

Friday, July 22, 2005

i haven't updated y'all about what i've seen, heard or enjoyed. so here it is:

MOVIES:war of the worlds - it didn't suck. it also wasn't the best movie ever. it just kinda was, and for what is was, it wasn't bad. the movie just gets right into it and keeps you running and somewhat tense throughout. i would have really liked it if it didn't have the worst ending ever. but that's what you get with a spielberg film - a great lead-up towards a terrible ending that just doesn't make any sense. it's okay, steven; not everything needs to be tightly tied together. it's called life. still, i had fun. and isn't that the point of summer blockbusters anyway?

SHOWS:hogan knows best - okay, okay, okay, i know, i know that i was a huge hulkamaniac growing up. i don't dispute that. and what i also won't dispute is that hulk hogan is a good father and his kids are, well, good kids. and it's kinda funny seeing this intimidating figure having a soft spot for a 16-year-old and a 14-year-old. it's not the osbournes - which was great because ozzy is a mess - but it's not TGIF on ABC either. there's nothing dysfunctional about it; it's just an average family with an extra-large sized father. good stuff.

MUSIC:kings of leon's "aha shake heartbreak" - this really shook me up. their first album was really, i don't know, corporate sounding. but this one is raw and energetic and i can't understand one thing the lead singer warbles. but he uses his voice as an instrument, and it layers perfectly over these really well-crafted songs. really great stuff, and very hard to put down. or shut off. yeah, shut off. that makes more sense than put down.

CONCERTS:beck at the bill graham auditiorium, san francisco - the coolest thing about seeing beck live is to hear his amazing range while looking at him and saying, "wow. all that came from that dude over there, huh?" his newest album "guero" is ever bit as good as his classic "odelay", and he played plenty from both. and it doesn't sound the same live as it does on disc; then again, how can it? there's so much that he layers into a track that it would be impossible to replicate (if you don't cheat). and he doesn't cheat anyone. the coolest part was when he told his band to take a break and eat some chinese food on stage on a table while he played his slow stuff. and, as they finished eating, they wound up backing him by playing their forks on their plates and glasses. great great stuff. great stuff. and it helps that beck is the coolest cat this side of the beastie boys.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

i'm not sure if i've got supernatural skillz, or maybe everyone else does but doesn't publicize it, but you can usually look at a kid and know how he's gonna turn out. take my nephew, for instance. he's gonna be a superstar in whatever he does. it's obvious.

anyway, while sitting in the airport waiting for my jet blue flight, i noticed (actually, couldn't help staring) at this woman trying to calm down her young son, who couldn't stop crying over trivial shit - even shit that's trivial for a four-year-old.

he cried and whined and bitched and didn't stop and he just broke down - over a stupid toy or something.

and as i watched the kid, it hit me. maybe it was a breeze of the supernatural, but i was able to look at this whining and crying kid and see what the future held for him.

i don't want to ruin a surprise, so if anyone reading this knows this kid, please stop now if you don't want to know his destiny. because, when this kid grows up, i have fortetold, he's gonna be a pussy.

in the cab on the way to jfk airport, my cabbie had a hagstrom atlas for new york city. he didn't need it; all we had to do was staten island expressway to belt parkway to the airport. it's basically a street guide. i'm sure every cabbie has one; it's gotta be a tool of the trade.

okay, seriously, they're a map company. what decisions need to be made that shows that they're "committed to excellence"? they're not rewriting the geography. they're not renaming the streets. it's already been decided! you get in a copter, you take a picture of the landscape, and you figure out what street is where. what else do you need to do for excellence? don't mess up. how about that. any idiot can do this if they have the time.

this is from philadelphia eagles wide receiver terrell owens, who is holding out for a better contract:

"At the end of the day, I don't have to worry about what people think of me, whether they hate me or not. People hated on Jesus. They threw stones at him and tried to kill him, so how can I complain or worry about what people think?"

some people might condemn owens for comparing himself to jesus. not me. i don't think it's fair to owens.

little known fact: in 1981, jesus came back from the dead and joined the new orleans saints as a midseason replacement. he caught 35 passes for 278 yards and 2 touchdowns. he wasn't the "godsend" that was hoped for, with the chemistry "not there" between he and quarteback archie manning. with the team struggling, season ticket holders supposedly threw stones at the rookie receiver/messiah, and he disappeared shortly thereafter.

so, you can see how this is totally unfair to terrell owens, who only lead the philadelphia eagles to their first super bowl appearance in 24 years, while jesus, in his big chance, did jack squat.

i took a ferry ride today with my nephew and family around new york city. i've grown up here, and i'm down with most of the local trivia and mafia tidbits. anyway, the performers on the boat offered this little bit i didn't know: the hudson river was discovered by giovanni verrazano, who also discovered staten island.

okay, first off: how do you discover a river? henry hudson was the first to navigate the whole river, therefore discovering that it was a river. i'm thinking that until then, it was just water. i mean, am i wrong about that? until hudson sailed the damn thing, verrazano must have just merely got his feet wet and said, "uh...yeah, so, my feet are wet, so i must've discovered a river or sumthin'" and then hudson proved it. is that what it takes? blind conjecture?

and then he discovered staten island? you can see staten island from downtown manhattan. you don't even need binoculars or a high vantage point. you can see it easily. did others not see it because it was foggy? did nobody even think of looking south? how can you discover an island that's in plain sight of everyone?

seriously, how much balls do you need to explain both of those as your "discoveries"?

can that be any more dubious?

my father's terrible joke that i've heard since childbirth is that when henry hudson navigated the hudson river, he pointed towards staten island and said, "is that an island?" and therefore, it was named.

maybe it was verrazano, or should we say, prince obvious.

i discovered a stream of water that leaked from the bathroom sink today. i claim it as a river. so now i believe a bridge should be named after me.

Monday, July 11, 2005

i saw these shirts at hot topic in the staten island mall. i didn't buy them because they were flimsy looking, but they made me laugh. they're state slogan shirts, and i've ranked them in order from "i chuckled" to "my stomach hurt".

6. utah: we spread the love.5. illinois: the last s is silent, stupid.4. welcome to new jersey. you say somethin?3. what happens in kentucky should stay in kentucky.2. delaware. which state is that in?

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

after watching "the twenty" at a regal cinema before watching "war of the worlds", i came across this interesting tidbit from the eonline.com:

In response to gripes from customers about the increasing number of ads, PSAs, promotions and sneak previews running before a film, Loews, the nation's third-largest theater chain, has announced that it will soon start publicizing the real times that movies unspool.

But there's a catch. Beginning next month, Loews will include in its newspaper and Web listings a note alerting customers that "the feature presentation starts 10 to 15 minutes after the posted show time."

"It has been a long-standing tradition to show coming attractions and advertising before the feature, and we believe most of our customers understand this practice," Travis Reid, president and CEO of Loews Cineplex, says in a press release.

He added: "Recently however, some of our customers have suggested that we also publicize the start time of the movie. In response to those requests, we are pleased to communicate the start time of the overall show, as well as the approximate start time of the feature."

okay, let's think about this: instead of actually starting a movie on time, like advertised, they're gonna give you the time that the previews start, and then tell you that the film will start an estimated 15-20 minutes after.

did they think about this? who's gonna show up at the preview starting time?

here's a better idea: give us the friggin' time that the friggin' movie is gonna friggin' begin. most people are gonna get to the theater early so they don't sit in the front row. play your friggin' previews before the time the movie starts. if the movie starts at 8, begin "the twenty" at 7:40. that way nobody complains - they're not paying for 7:40-7:59. they're paying for 8:00 on.

how hard is that?

why can't these jackasses see that logic? is it because they're too busy making another crappy remake or sequel?

Saturday, July 02, 2005

"overheard in new york" is a blog that chronicles different things said by people in new york that are sent in by other people who overheard them. it's utterly fantastic and fascinating and completely new york.

i've been watching live 8 all day long, and it's really been an amazing achievement. not just the music, but the statements being made. don't get me wrong: watching paul mccartney and pink floyd and stevie wonder and green day and jay-z and the who and coldplay and u2 and madonna and rem and alicia keys and on and on and on is a fantastic show, no matter why or where. but it's all about urging the leaders of the world to make solving the hunger problem the top priority. you know, saving lives, not taking them.

and the fact that they're not taking any donations or charging a fee proves that their hearts and intentions are in the right place.

and, although mtv and their vapid vjs have been going into the crowd and asking the crowd insipid questions and getting even denser answers, a mighty big statement is being made: millions are gathering and hoping that they're being heard.

check out these crowds:

it's an amazing statement. i've certainly listenend and learned.

but, honestly, do you really think the world leaders actually give a shit? not that they don't want to do something about it, but how important is it to them? do you really think this is gonna change their minds or priorities? do you really think over a billion opinions can change eight?

i went to my local laundromat to wash my clothes. i live in a nice enough neighborhood in the sf, so i usually just wash or dry and leave it to do some chores and then return to pick it up. of course, there are homeless around, but i live in the sf, so it comes with the territory.

i've been doing this for two years. no problems.

today i tossed my clothes into the dryer (as a matter of fact, i threw them with great velocity from the washer into the dryer. it's stupid, but it's what i do). i put in my six quarters. i set it on medium heat. i left my laundry bag on a shelf. and as i was leaving, i was stopped my a drunk homeless gentleman sitting in a chair inside the laundromat.

"hey, man, where you from?" he garbled.

"umm...new york."

"oh, right on, right on, i'm from anchorage, right on. hey, i'm on my way...goin' to seattle...work on a barge...my wife, she's a drinker...behind the woods....goin' to seattle..." (you know, the same ol' same ol').

this was his pitch. it was written in jack daniels.

i usually don't give any money (because i know where it's going), but i have a dilemma: this man is homeless, and he's currently taking residence in the same place as my clothes. i want to leave them as they tumble dry so i can do my chores. i don't want to sit here and talk to this man, who can barely make any sense with his business pitch.

so i gave him a dollar. not only to get him to leave me alone but also, and much more importantly and for the one thing left unsaid, for him not to piss in my laundry.

and he gave me a dirty look, as if this dollar wasn't good enough.

but seriously, what was he expecting, and isn't a $1 enough to ensure that my laundry wouldn't get peed on? i surely wasn't giving it to him out of sympathy. he didn't even give me a good pitch. the business proposition was completely clear.

Friday, July 01, 2005

San Francisco's Warfield Theatre, a Market Street venue for popular music, will be renamed the SF Weekly Warfield under a three-year promotional deal between concert promoter Bill Graham Presents and the SF Weekly newspaper.

for those of you who don't know, the warfield (along with the fillmore) are not only the meccas of music in san francisco, but also the world. i can't count how many shows i've seen in this city where the band said "i can't believe we're playing in the warfield!" (or the fillmore). it's famous.

in the warfield's foyer, you pass by countless photographs of all the rock stars who've performed there - from the stones to bob dylan to hendrix to joplin to nirvana...it's endless, really.

you haven't arrived until you've arrived at the warfield.

not the "sf weekly" warfield.

look, we live in a capitalistic society. and companies should be allowed to make as much money as possible. what i'm saying is to have a little couth.

is it too much to say "the warfield, presented by sf weekly"? since when does "sf weekly" take precendence before the warfield? do bands perform here because of the sf weekly part? i don't think so.

is it arrogance or stupidity?

i understand that this is an advertising gimmick. but usurping a name that means so much to so many people doesn't seem like good advertising - in fact, it's gotta raise emnity.

wouldn't it be better for a company to sponsor a ballpark or whatever and then name it something else?

my roommate and i were on the way to mcafee coliseum. yeah, what? it's where the a's and the raiders play. surprise! anyway, i brought up a point that the people who would use mcafee already know what mcafee is. there's no point in advertising it as a stadium name. but wouldn't it be something that during baseball season, mcafee announces that they bought sponsoring for the stadium name, but they decided to name it vida blue coliseum instead? or charlie finley coliseum? and during football stadium, they name it lester hayes coliseum? wouldn't that be a great pr campaign? hell, you could put mcafee all over the place inside the stadium.

it would bring up a good feeling about the company. and isn't that the point of advertising?

i just saw "batman begins", and it completely blew me away. christopher nolan wrote and directed an amazing script, one that gives a humanity to a superhero. and the way it was unfolded and shot, well, i haven't seen anything that just never been told that way. batman is a regular man bent on revenge. he's a psychological warrior without superpowers. he is a detective and a scientist.

that hasn't always shined through. it does now. and although that might not sound appetizing, it makes for the best stories. you can relate to this man and his motives.

and i loved how there was a perfectly reasonable rationale for the villains in the film. they weren't evil; they just had a different way, demented as it may be.

again, it's refreshing - and surprising.

i'm shocked that warner brothers made this movie. it's not for children. the superhero doesn't really seem marketable. it's very dark and very intelligent. yeah, there can be a sequel, but there doesn't have to be. it wasn't over-the-top. and there wasn't really a bankable scene or action movie moment that can be transcended.

it's a movie about a guy with a vendetta. it's a great movie. it doesn't seem like a big summer blockbuster event - much like how they're churning out "fantasttic 4" or how they made the clooney-schumacher "batman" abortions. it's brave because it must be totally against their corporate hollywood studio instincts.

then again, warner brothers should just be commended for hiring christopher nolan and leaving him alone (which i'm sure they really didn't, but they did buy off on this amazing script). i mean, they totally could have gone schumacher again. or, god forbid, they could have gone michael bay on us.

god forbid.

finally, hollywood is getting comic book heroes correct. by making them human, we can relate to them. then again, there weren't more human comic books than "batman" or "spider-man".

too bad that streak is gonna break. i have a terrible feeling that "fantastic 4" is gonna suck.

by the way, as my friend will points out, is there a more inspired casting choice than willie nelson as uncle jesse in "the dukes of hazzard" movie? and how ideal are johnny knoxville and stiffler as the duke boys? and is there anyone more daisy duke than jessica simpson?

The Bucks, according to sources, have commited to paying the 25-year-old an estimated $80-90 million over the next six seasons. Exact figures won't be available until July 22...but what is known now is that Milwaukee's offer will indeed be $20-plus million higher than anyone else's.

That includes the Cleveland Cavaliers, who've made Redd their No. 1 target in free agency by offering a five-year max deal worth an estimated $60-70 million.

Redd would stun most league observers if he leaves that lucrative extra year on the table.

seriously, is there a difference between $70 million and $90 million? what monetary value do you have to hit where you're just not gonna be able to spend it all anyway? i know that mike tyson and michael jackson have completely outspent themselves, but among the sane, how much can you really spend? do you get anything special with that extra $20 million?

and when you say the words "extra $20 million", doesn't that just mean that the "extra $20 million" just doesn't matter anyway? if you have $1 million, there's no such thing as "an extra $20 million". it's just $21 million.

i guess here's my point:

for $90 million, he gets to play six years carrying a team that's gonna be bogged down by andrew bogut, a seven foot clumsy center from australia who, at best, will be vlade divac but may very well be jason collier.

or, for $70 million, he gets to play five years with this guy,who is further along in his career than this guy was,and who probably needs a guy like this,to win at least one of these.

but for an extra $20 million, you could just buy a whole bunch of them. winning them is just too hard.